Brother Michael Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery Beliefs and Practices
Exposed

Brother
Michael Dimond (also known as Frederick Dimond) is a
self-professed traditional Catholic, Benedictine monk, brother of
Peter (Robert) Dimond,
and superior of Most Holy Family
Monastery. Raised in a family with no religion, Frederick
Dimond converted to what he claims was Catholicism at the age of 15,
and, at the age of 19, he entered Most Holy Family Monastery in 1992,
a short time after graduating from high school. Frederick, now going
by the name of Brother Michael Dimond, was elected superior of Most
Holy Family Monastery in late 1995, after Brother Joseph Natale, the
founder and first superior of Most Holy Family Monastery, died.
Michael also claims he took his final vows before a validly ordained
priest. (Info on our Benedictine Community - Bro. Michael Dimond
O.S.B.)

They
attend mass at meetinghouses of the heretics

As
is well known, the Dimond brothers knowingly attend Mass at
“meetinghouses (churches) of the heretics” and thus
knowingly pray in communion with notorious heretics. They attend Mass
at an Eastern Rite church that is under the apostate antipope of the
Vatican II church. They also admit that the priests and most of the
people in the church where they attend Mass (and in other churches
where they tell their followers to attend Mass) are notorious, known
heretics:

Peter
Dimond, E-mail conversations with RJMI (12/29/2001): “The
priest where we go to Mass knows what we believe, and the
people who go there have had the information made available to them.”

Peter
Dimond, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No
Salvation: “God allowed the Catholic Buildings,
Seminaries and Schools to be taken away and confiscated
by a counterfeit non-Catholic sect (the Vatican
II/Novus Ordo sect), with apostate priests, perverts, a phony
“Mass” (the New Mass) and an apostate antipope…”

Peter
Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate –
The Important Quotes: “… whether it’s
lawful to receive sacraments from certain UNDECLARED HERETICS during
this crisis and apostasy... It should also be emphasized that
while we are pointing out that CATHOLICS MAY RECEIVE SACRAMENTS
FROM SOME PRIESTS WHO ARE UNDECLARED HERETICS in this time...”

Peter
and Michael Dimond, A Voice Crying in the Wilderness, Issue
#5, Final Remarks, p. 65: “The sad reality of this
situation—which [the Vatican II sect and the] Antipope... and
his cohorts have created—means that those who accept him,
follow him, or defend him, while disregarding the facts presented
in this magazine and the other available evidence which exposes him
as an Antipope... will lose their souls and be tortured in
Hell for all eternity.”

Michael
Dimond, Can Catholics go anywhere to receive sacraments today?:
“My present position on this issue would be that a Catholic
may go and receive the sacraments from a validly ordained [heretical]
priest [of the heretical and apostate sect] who accepts Benedict XVI
as the pope under the conditions explained below. My personal
position on this issue, at this point in the apostasy, is that you
are not going for the Mass. You are merely going
to the church to receive Communion and confession. I have
advised people to deliberately arrive at the Mass late because
you are there merely to receive the sacraments and for nothing else.
As far as praying with the [heretical] people [who are members of
the heretical sect], I have told people that they should pray by
themselves until Communion is given. When you see that the priest
is about to give Communion, one could then go into the main part of
the church to receive Communion.”

Peter
Dimond, speaking on behalf of Michael Dimond and MHFM: “Let
it be known, however, that we don’t pray in common
with heretics. I don’t join my prayer with
any heretics, nor do I recommend anyone to do so, but only
true Catholics. … I repeat that I don’t pray
or sing psalms with heretics. … Moreover,
as I said before, I don’t go into the meeting houses of
heretics, nor do I recommend anyone to.” (E-mail
conversations with RJMI (12/29/2001))

When
or where has the Church ever endorsed such strange, contradictory
behavior that the Dimonds are advocating here? Nowhere!

Council
of Laodicea, Canon 9 (A.D. 364): “The members of the
Church are not allowed to meet...
any of the heretics, for prayer or service; but such as so do, if
they be communicants, shall be excommunicated for a time; but if they
repent and confess that they have sinned they shall be received.”

The
1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1258: “It is not
permitted at all for the faithful to assist in any active manner at
or to have any part in the worship of non-Catholics.”

1917
Code of Canon Law, Canon 823: “Mass may not be said
in churches of heretics or schismatics, even though they were in the
past properly consecrated or blessed.”

Pope
Pius VI, Charitas Quae, April 13, 1791: “31... Keep
away from all intruders, whether called archbishops, bishops, or
parish priests; do not hold communionwith them especially in divine worship.”

Pope
Pius XI, Mortalium animos, (06/01/1928): “So,
Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never
allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of
non-Catholics.”

However,
if it’s true that they have presented the truth to the priest
and people with whom they attend Mass, by their own admission, then,
they are knowingly praying in communion with non-Catholics and
participating in the crime of sacrilegious receptions of Holy
Communion with non-Catholics. Elsewhere Peter and Michael Dimond
explicitly admits this:

Peter
and Michael Dimond, The Heretical Society of Pius V (2003):
“This is why we have taken pains to strenuously point out
to those who attend the Masses of the SSPV (or the C.M.R.I., Society
of St. Pius X, Byzantine churches, and almost all independent
‘traditional’ priests, etc. who believe the same way)
that they cannot give them any financial support under pain of
mortal sin, for this would actually constitute a
denial of the faith by donating to a HERETICAL ORGANIZATION.”

Apostolic
Constitutions, Book II, Section 7:62 (c. 380 AD.): “Take
heed, therefore, not to join yourselves in your worship with those
that perish... For there is no fellowship between God and the
devil; for he that assembles himself with those that favour the
things of the devil, will be esteemed one of them, and will inherit a
woe. … So that it is the duty of a believer to avoid the
assemblies of the ungodly... and of the rest of the
heretics, lest by uniting ourselves to them
we bring snares upon our own souls; that we may not by
joining in their feasts, which are celebrated in honour of demons, be
partakers with them in their impiety.”

Because
none of them were ever ordained, and they believe that the New Mass
is invalid and a false worship, they receive the sacraments from a
Byzantine rite Catholic Church that is in communion with Vatican II
and its antipopes, in Rochester, New York, in layman’s clothes
in lieu of their Benedictine habits for this occasion. Peter Dimond
wrote: “In receiving the sacraments from certain Byzantine
priests for over the last decade – i.e. from priests who are
not notorious or imposing about their heresies – I’ve
received what I consider to be tremendous spiritual graces.”
(The Question of whether one may receive Sacraments in these
difficult times)

The
Catholic Church, however, teaches the following concerning “receiving
the sacraments” from heretical and schismatical ministers:

Pope
Pius VIII, TraditiHumilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829:
“Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the Lamb
outside this house [at
meetinghouses of heretics] will perish as
did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.”

Pope
Gregory XVI, Commissumdivinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835:
“Whoever eats the Lamb outside of this house
[at the meetinghouses of the heretics] is unholy.”

A
former member of Most Holy Family Monastery, Richard Ibranyi, said
the following concerning the religious practices and activities of
his former superior, Michael Dimond, at the time of his association
with him:

RJMI,
E-mail conversations with Peter Dimond (12/29/2001): “Michael
Dimond strictly forbids anyone to talk to the people or the priest,
not even so much as a hello. He also forbids his minions to hand out
or leave any literature in, or in front of the church. I know. I was
one of his minions. I gave him false obedience in this, and committed
mortal sins against the first commandment by omission for remaining
silent, and by association for knowingly praying in communion with
non-Catholics. I have been severely punished by God for this crime of
mine. I sinfully obeyed Michael, and in so doing shirked my duty to
profess the faith. I wanted to, but I gave Michael false obedience
and remained silent for a long period of time. I chose men over God.
It is even worse than when I was there. When I attended Mass with
Michael we wore religious garb. I heard from Will Norris that he no
longer does that. You and Michael, like cowards trying to hide your
crime, attend Mass in the clothing of laymen. This only proves what
was true when I was there. Michael, his religious order, and you are
non-Catholic frauds. I told Michael this when I was at the
“Monastery.” I told him, “Either we profess the
full deposit of faith and live by it or we are nothing more than
non-Catholic frauds. Lets take off these costumes now and stop
pretending and lying to the people.”

Concerning
his expulsion from “Most Holy Family Monastery” by his
superior - Michael Dimond - Richard Ibranyi said the following:

“Why
I Left Most Holy Family Monastery - Many have asked why I left the
Most Holy Family Monastery, in which Bro. Michael was my superior. I
had held the sedevacante
position a year before I was released from the monastery and was
silenced by Michael from teaching this truth. He obstinately argued
that he could not make a declaration that John Paul II is an
antipope. Consequently, I persistently condemned him and his belief
with the clear words of the Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio
which decrees that a heretic cannot be elected to the papacy even if
all of the Cardinals were to elect him as pope, and with canon law
which decrees that a pope who becomes a notorious heretic
automatically loses his papal office by operation of Church law and
thus without the need of a declaration, as stated in Canon 188.4 on
Tacit Resignation of Office… I vigorously resisted Michael by
telling him that I would not consent to his heresy of denying these
infallible teachings. I also vigorously resisted him when he ordered
me not to give these Catholic teachings to others; and thus I
denounced him for impugning the truth, just as apostate John Paul II
impugns the truth. Consequently, I was eventually released from the
monastery because of this intense dispute; but Michael has never
admitted that this is the reason he let me go from the monastery. On
August 29, 1997, Michael expelled me from the monastery. He tried to
release me without mentioning the real reason. He told me that he
believed God was calling me to a more public preaching ministry;
whereas, the monastery is more contemplative. I did not tolerate his
excuse. I told him, “That is a lie! For one, we are not a
totally contemplative monastery. We have produced public
controversial information that obliges us to defend our teachings
publicly and to try to convert souls. The real reason you are
expelling me is because I hold the sedevacante position and you do
not.” Michael then banged his fist on the table and said, “Yes,
that is the reason! No one can judge the pope. No one can make a
declaration against a pope.” That is when I said, “No
person needs to judge a pope who becomes a notorious heretic because
the Church Herself, by operation of Her laws, automatically
excommunicates a heretical pope and automatically deposes him. I will
say this a thousand times if I have to: Canon 188.4 teaches that ‘no
declaration is necessary,’ ‘no declaration is necessary,’
‘no declaration is necessary,’ ‘no declaration is
necessary’ for a notorious heretic to fall from the papal
office. That is the truth you are impugning, and I will not obey you
in your sinful commands just as you do not obey John Paul II, a man
you believe is the pope, in his sinful commands.” … A
year or more after my departure, Michael changed his belief and held
the sedevacante
position; but he never admitted that he had expelled me for the real
reason mentioned in this letter.”

Will
Norris, who also was associated with Peter and Michael Dimond and
stayed at their Monastery in Fillmore, New York, for a period of time
(and who later admitted to being misled by some of their teachings
into thinking Catholics can pray in communion with notorious heretics
and schismatics by attending their Masses), said the following
concerning their religious practices at the time of their
association:

Will
Norris, Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, 1/10/2002: “I went to Mass with
Michael and Peter about three times. They do not wear religious garb.
They dress as laymen so the priest and people do not think they are
brothers. We went late all the time. We arrived around the reading of
the Gospel. After Mass we went to confession and then promptly left
without speaking to anyone or leaving any literature in the church or
on the cars out front. He did this every time I attended Mass with
him. I asked Michael about giving the information to the priest at
the church. Michael said he was considering mailing it to him without
putting his name on the envelope. But he was leery of doing this
because he was afraid of being refused the sacraments. I asked
Michael, is not the Mass the highest form of prayer and aren’t
we praying in communion with the priest and people? Michael said the
priest is the one who is offers up the sacrifice and not us. We
are not guilty of his sins against the faith.”

Contrary
to Michael Dimond’s heretical ravings, the Catholic Church
teaches the following concerning religious association with known
heretics and schismatics (and yes, as we have already seen, Peter and Michael Dimond
do believe the churches offering them mass and the priests giving them
the sacraments are heretical priests and heretical churches):

“How
does a Catholic sin against faith? A Catholic sins against
Faith by Apostasy, heresy, indifferentism and by
taking part in non-Catholic worship.” (Catechism of
the Council of Trent, Catechism [attributed to] Pope St. Pius X and
The Baltimore Catechism)

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement, Q. 23, Art. 3,
Reply to Objection 2: “The commandment of the Church regards
spiritual matters directly, and legitimate actions as a consequence:
hence by holding communion in Divine worship[such as with a heretic,] one acts against the commandment, and
commits a mortal sin;”

Apostolic
Constitutions, Canon 45: “Let a bishop, presbyter, or
deacon [or layman], who has only prayed with heretics, be
excommunicated: but if he has permitted them to perform
any clerical office, let him be deposed.”

Apostolic
Constitutions, Canon 65: “If any one, either of the
clergy or laity, enters into a synagogue of the Jews or
heretics to pray, let him be deprived and suspended [or
excommunicated].”

Council
of Carthage: “One must neither pray nor sing psalms with
heretics, and whoever shall communicate with those who are
cut offfrom the communion of the Church, whether clergy
or layman: let him be excommunicated.”

Therefore,
since it’s forbidden to be in religious communion with
heretics, pray with them, or receive the sacraments from them, it
is a mortal sin to receive the sacraments of the Eucharist and
Penance from heretical ministers or enter their churches. Elsewhere
Peter Dimond, speaking on behalf of Michael Dimond and MHFM,
explicitly admits this:

Peter
Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate –
The Important Quotes: “The sin is caused by
communicating with them despite (against) the Church’s
prohibition...”

What
Michael Dimond must do instead of looking for
excuses to go to the heretics is to denounce these murderers of souls
(heretics and schismatics) before other people as one is obliged to
do in such situations, and what he must not do
is to profess religious communion with them. It’s quite easy
really if one is just honest with oneself. Unless one oppose heretics
and schismatics and manifest error when one can do so, one will be
condemned to an eternal hellfire and share in their sin as the
following quotes makes perfectly clear:

Pope
St. Felix III (5th Century): “Not to oppose error is
to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and,
indeed, to neglect to confound evil men - when we can do it - is no
less a sin than to encourage them.”

James
4:17: “To him therefore who knoweth to do good, and
doth it not, to him it is sin.”

1917
Code of Canon Law, Canon 1325.1:
“Obligation to Profess the Faith - The faithful are
bound to profess their faith openly whenever under the circumstances
silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise
implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve
contempt of religion, an offense to God, or scandal to their
neighbor.”

Pope
Leo XIII, Inimica Vis, 1892: “An
error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not
defended is suppressed… He who does not oppose an evident
crime is open to the suspicion of secret complicity.”

So
the Dimonds are also heretics because they implicitly deny the
Catholic faith by evading their obligation to properly profess the
Catholic faith to those with whom they pray in communion. They are
also heretics for making themselves partner in their sin.

The
Dimond brothers thus deny the Catholic Faith, give offense to God
and give scandal to his neighbor by entering the houses of
heretics and schismatics, thereby publicly professing to all present
that they share the same faith as them. The scandal this provokes in
the eyes of true Catholics is easy to understand. For every person
that sees them entering a church where the priest is a heretic or
schismatic, will assume they agree with his heresy or schism. If they
would stand up and denounce those who adhere to the phony Vatican II
“Church,” as a Catholic is bound to do, they would
immediately be thrown out of there. The Dimonds make a mockery of the
unity of faith!

AUTOMATIC
EXCOMMUNICATION FOR ALL HERETICS, SCHISMATICS AND APOSTATES WITHOUT
EXCEPTION

The
declaratory sentence which follows an automatic
excommunication is merely a legal recognition of something which
already exists. If this were not true, the automatic
excommunication would be meaningless. Canon 2314, of the 1917 Code of
Canon Law, although not infallible, is perfectly in line with
Catholic teaching: “All apostates from the Christian faith and
each and every heretic or schismatic: 1) Incur ipso facto [by
that very fact] excommunication…”

Pope
Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For
not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature
to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or
heresy or apostasy.”

Pope
Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The
practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the
unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as
OUTSIDE CATHOLIC COMMUNION, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER
WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED
BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.”

Pope
Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: “47.
Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary,
according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication
or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and
that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no
other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect –
false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church,
erroneous.”

The
heretical person is already severed from the Church. Most heretics
are known to be heretics without a trial or declaratory sentence,
and must be denounced as such. As we see here, the Catholic Church
teaches that formal processes and judgments are not necessary for
ipso facto (by that very fact) excommunications
to take effect. They are very often, as in the case of the
heretic Martin Luther, formal recognitions of the ipso facto
excommunication that has already occurred.
This should be obvious to a Catholic.

Pope
Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22): “As therefore
in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one
Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.
And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be
considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a
publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or
government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can
they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”

St.
Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: “…
for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT
SOMEONE IS A HERETIC BY HIS EXTERNAL WORKS, THEY JUDGE HIM TO BE A
HERETIC PURE AND SIMPLE, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC. For, in the
first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from
reason that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed. The
argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders
that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after
showing himself to be manifestly obstinate which means before any
excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome
writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by
sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and
separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ.”

As
we’ve already shown, it’s a dogma that 1) heretics are
not members of the Church; and 2) that a heretic is automatically
excommunicated (ipso facto) without any further declaration. It is a
dogmatic fact, therefore, that a heretic cannot be a part of or
govern the Church, since he is not a member of it. To state that
Catholics should hold communion with a manifest heretic because no
process against him had been completed, is contrary to Catholic
teaching, Catholic Tradition and Catholic sense.

THE
DIMOND BROTHERS PLAY BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE

Observe
how the brothers play both sides of the fence. How many times have we
all heard from Novus Ordo people and other heretics that we don’t
have the right to judge who is a heretic? That a heretic has to be
formally declared by the Church? Of course we all know that’s
not true and it seems the Dimond brothers would agree with this.
Well, sometimes that is. You see, they sadly like to have their cake
and eat it too. You see out of one side of their mouth they say that
Catholics have the obligation to judge and denounce heretics, and
that heretics lose authority in the church WITHOUT DECLARATION:

MHFM:
“Heretics lose all membership and authority in the Catholic
Church automatically.”

MHFM:
“Catholics have an obligation to judge and denounce heretics
when they manifest their rejection of Catholic truth by their words
and actions.”

Then
out of the other side of their double tongued mouth they say that it
is lawful to receive the sacraments from a heretic so long as he is
an "undeclared" heretic, meaning that he has not
officially been declared a heretic by the Church. Now can anyone
please tell me how they are going to be officially declared a heretic
when the see of St. Peter is vacant?

Peter
Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate –
The Important Quotes: “CATHOLICS MAY RECEIVE SACRAMENTS
FROM SOME PRIESTS WHO ARE UNDECLARED HERETICS in
this time...”

Peter
Dimond, Sacraments From Heretics Debate: “And what we’ve
pointed out on our website, we’ve not said that unless
someone’s imposing he cannot be considered a heretic. No
what we’ve said is, that without a declaration, for there to
be a positive absolute obligation to avoid an undeclared
heretic, he would either have to be an imposing heretic,
impose his false views on you, or be so notorious that it cannot
be concealed or excused in anyway in law.”

By
the way, if you ever wonder where the Dimonds got their “imposing”
argument from, know they have simply made it up for themselves. As
far as we are aware of, no saint, theologian or even a heretic has
ever made such an idiotic argument, prior to Peter and Michael
Dimond. The Dimonds simply made up this argument from thin air to
bolster their heresy of receiving the sacraments from heretics.

MHFM,
Where to Go to Mass or Confession today? Traditional Options for
the Sacraments: “If he’s not opposed to it, but is
in favor of the Vatican II ecumenism, then he is a
notorious heretic and you should not receive Communion from him.
Another question to ask him is whether he believes that
non-Catholics, such as the “Orthodox,” need to be
converted to the Catholic Faith. If he doesn’t say “yes,”
then he is a notorious heretic.”

But
even though the Dimonds admitted above that the priest is
a notorious heretic after admitting to his
heresy, yet, in another hypocritical twist, they nevertheless
teach that some heretics that WE KNOW ARE HERETICS AFTER
TALKING TO THEM AND THEY HAVE ADMITTED TO THEIR HERESIES,
may nevertheless be communed with as long as they are NOT
NOTORIOUS about their heresies.

Peter
and Michael Dimond, Where to Go to Mass or Confession today?
Traditional Options for the Sacraments: “... you
must call the... [heretical] priest up and ask him certain questions
before receiving Communion from him... all of these priests
hold that souls can be saved without the Catholic Faith by
“baptism of desire” and “invincible ignorance.”
... You will see by his answers that he holds that souls
can be saved without the Catholic Faith and the
Sacrament of Baptism, which is contrary to Catholic
teaching. ... But... you can
go to them for confession and Communion if they are
validly ordained and NOT NOTORIOUS or imposing about their
false positions and if one doesn’t support them.”

Do
the Dimonds contradict themselves? Of course they do. According to
the Dimonds, a priest can be both a notorious heretic
and a non-notorious heretic at the same time!

It’s
as if the Dimonds actually seem to believe that their self made list
of what constitutes a notorious heresy is applicable to the rest of
humanity! Their view actually have the boldness to claim that some
heresies can be tolerated or excused (such as denial of the necessity
of Jesus Christ or the Catholic faith for salvation) while others may
not (such as the heresy of favoring the Vatican II ecumenism or that
the “Orthodox” don’t need to be converted). The
Catholic Church however condemns all heresies and heretics and shuns
communion with them. How MHFM decide which heresies can be tolerated
or excused or not is of course impossible to understand. As all
honest people can see, it’s just the imaginations of the
Dimonds’ own made up claims without any dogmatic proof
whatsoever to back up their words.

Pope
Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553, ex
cathedra: “The heretic, even though he has not
been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema
on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his
heresy. What reply can such people make to the Apostle when he
writes: As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him once or
twice, have nothing more to do with him,
knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is
self-condemned.”

That
not even a single saint or doctor of the Church can ever be cited to
have received a sacrament (except for perhaps baptism) from a known
heretic, even though countless people have been in situations where
sacraments were not available, does not face the Dimonds’
satanic will one bit.

III
Council of Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic
or laymanshall go into the synagogue of the
Jews or the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer
with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion
[excommunicated]. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall
join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.”

CAN HERETICS
HAVE AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH?

What
are the requirements for a licit reception of the sacraments? This is
a very important question to understand since many claim one can
receive the sacraments licitly not only from heretics, but from
apostate priests as well.

The
Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13. "Sacraments" (1912):
“Conditions for the licit reception - (b) For the licit
reception it is also necessary to observe all that is prescribed by
Divine or ecclesiastical law, e.g. as to time, place, the minister,
etc. As the Church alone has the care of the sacraments and
generallyher duly appointed
agents alone have the right to administer them, except
Baptism in some cases, it is a general law that application for
the sacraments should be made to worthy and duly appointed
ministers.”

Sadly,
we have come to a point in the history of the Church where even
heretics are considered by some to consecrate the Eucharist licitly
in the Church; which means, somehow, that
heretics are given authority in the Church. But this is of course
impossible. For to give or receive the sacraments licitly, means to
give or receive them by the authority and permission of the Church.
Do heretics have this authority in the Catholic Church (except for
the sacrament of baptism)? No. Do heretics confect the sacrament of
Confession validly and the Eucharist licitly? Of course not! And do
they do these acts with the permission and the authority of the
Catholic Church? Of course not! They do not have this authority
either to consecrate the Eucharist licitly, or to absolve from sins
validly or licitly, as we have shown! Please look at the following
dogmas of the Church carefully, and see how heretics are outside
the Church of Christ.

Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino,"
1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes,
professes and preaches that all those who are outside the
Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics
and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go
into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his
angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their
lives...”

Here
we can see that all Catholics are bound under pain of mortal sin to
believe that a heretic is outside the Catholic Church. Here are some
other testimonies from the Magisterium which affirm this fact.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of
Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441: “Therefore the
Holy Roman Church condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares
to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church,
whoever holds opposing or contrary views.”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici
Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin,
however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever
a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or
apostasy.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
(# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always
been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers,
who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien
to the Church, whoever would recede in the
least degree from any point of doctrine proposed
by her authoritative Magisterium.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
(# 9): “No one who merely disbelieves in all can for that
reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there
may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this
work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single heresy he is
not a Catholic.”

Pope Innocent III, Eius
exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the
mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics,
but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which
we believe that no one is saved.”

This
last solemn profession of faith by Pope Innocent III in Eius
exemplo, demonstrates how foreign to Catholic belief – that
is to say, how heretical – is the idea that a heretic can be
inside the Church. Nevertheless, this is exactly the idea proposed by
individuals who assert that heretics – somehow – have
authority to licitly administer the sacraments. And since it is a
dogma that a heretic cannot be inside the Church, it is a dogmatic
fact (a fact which if it were not true would render a dogma false)
that a heretic cannot have any authority in the Church.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
(#15), June 29, 1896: “it is absurd to imagine that he
who is outside can command in the Church.”

Therefore,
it is most certain that a heretic cannot consecrate the Eucharist
licitly or administer the sacrament of Confession validly or licitly,
because, as we have just seen, it is absurd to imagine that one who
is outside can command in the Church.

Pope
Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22), June 29, 1943:
“Actually only those are to be included as members of the
Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who
have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity
of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave
faults committed.”

Copyright: All videos and articles on our site are free to copy and share for free. Please remember to also include live links to the source of the info.
We are looking for translators who have the skill to make a good translation of important articles for the salvation of souls. We are also in need of translators who can translate Saint Bridget's Revelations into different languages. If you can help us on this important work, please contact us here.
We need your help! We are spending all the time our expenses among things like websites, webhotels, and giving away free material, dvds and books in order to warn people and tell them the truth. So if you like the material and want to help us—and be yourself a sharer—in saving souls, then please make a donation, pray for us and help us spread it in order to help our beloved brothers and sisters who have not found this information yet. If you have been graced by God with the means to do so, please support our work. Any donation that you can give is highly appreciated and much needed! Help us help our beloved brothers' and sisters' souls. Your Support Counts! All for the Glory of God and the salvation of souls! Please click here!
"And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward." Matthew 10:42